Archive for February, 2009
Written by: Rev. Dr. Philip Turner
Sunday, February 22nd, 2009
In 2006 Ephraim Radner and I published a collection of essays entitled The Fate of Communion. In that collection we sought to address the threats that now hang over the Anglican Communion. We sought to indicate that the crisis in which Anglicans find themselves, though theological and moral at its root, in fact involves church order as well. We attempted, though too briefly I believe, to raise a question about the adequacy of our forms of governance and the way in which we understand and use them.
Much has happened since the appearance of The Fate of Communion, and a great deal of what has transpired concerns the way in which the Communion is ordered and governed. There is a need now to say more than we did then about the way our common life is to be ordered, and this need presents a real challenge. Polity is a much-neglected subject, particularly on the part of those who teach theology and theological ethics. It is thought to be unimportant—indeed, something of a nuisance that detracts from the really important stuff. As a result, it has been removed from theology and ethics and shoved to the periphery of the formation given our clergy. Few either understand or appreciate its importance. However, as is often the case when important matters are neglected, they come around to bite us on the backside.
If our seminaries were institutions for the teaching of political science or political philosophy a mistake like this would not be made. Questions of polity would lie near the center of their concerns. Indeed, polity is a major subject in moral philosophy. Just pick up a book by John Rawls, or Michael Sandel (not to mention Plato, Aristotle, John Locke or John Steward Mill.) You might even pick up the writings of Richard Hooker, Martin Luther, John Calvin or Menno Simons, and there you would find also that the question of governance plays a very important role in what they were thinking and writing about.
read more...
February 22 2009 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Dr. Philip Turner
Tuesday, February 10th, 2009
I have been asked to lead a discussion of a matter of central importance both to The Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Anglican Communion (TAC). It is a matter whose outcome will determine whether or not Anglicanism remains a credible form of Catholic Christianity. Its outcome will also determine whether or TEC remains a part of that catholic expression of Christian faith and practice or becomes no more than another denomination in the fan of liberal protestant options that make up America’s religious map. I speak, of course, of the proposed Anglican Covenant.
I hope to stimulate our conversation by means of three presentations each of which will be followed by a period for questions, responses and discussion. The first will delve into the background of the covenant proposal. The second will place in view the proposal now being considered by the Covenant Design Group (CDG) and soon by the Anglican Consultative Council. The third will take a look at objections, defenses, and possible outcomes. My hope and prayer is that we can have an open and charitable discussion of these matters if for no other reason than the life and health of our church and our communion depends upon a faithful grappling with the issues the proposed covenant presents.
read more...
February 10 2009 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Dr. Philip Turner
Tuesday, February 10th, 2009
How is a space in time in which conflict can be overcome and unity preserved to be, if not created, at least marked out? How is this task to be accomplished when the collegiality of bishops has unraveled to an alarming degree, and there is no centralized political and/or juridical order to fill the gap left by its decline? Or, to put the question in a more positive manner, how is the koinonia of the various Provinces of the Anglican Communion to be preserved and promoted at the same time the autonomy of each province is recognized, even celebrated?
The proposal now before provinces of the Communion is by means of a covenant that calls for placing autonomy within the encompassing and limiting context of communion. I have chosen to term this proposal “The Grand Design” for the simple reason that it is an ambitious and inventive proposal to preserve communion and catholic identity within a broad expanse of both space and time.
read more...
February 10 2009 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Dr. Philip Turner
Tuesday, February 10th, 2009
I have argued that TAC and TEC stand at a cross roads in their respective histories. We are faced with a classical question that St. Luke states simply and clearly. “What then shall we do?” Are we to covenant or are we not to covenant? That is the question. That the question is a live one became obvious in the responses given to TSAD by the Bishops of our Communion when last they assembled at Lambeth. Those responses are now in the public domain, and I urge their careful study. They provide an excellent introduction to the push and pull that now defines the torn fabric of our Communion. They serve well to take us through the dilemmas we face, and they provide an excellent format we can use to assess the value of the covenant proposal.
The first question, one that like the others I will list in fact expresses an objection, is this: why do we need a covenant at all? The answer lies first of all in the history of our Communion. Over the past 150 years God has blessed the missionary efforts of Anglicans in various parts of the world. Anglicans now form the third largest body of Christians on the globe. Of greater importance is the fact that Anglican churches in Africa and Asia have emerged as Spirit-filled Christian communities that are in no small measure responsible for the explosive growth of Christian belief and practice in those areas of the world. The covenant thus does more than address the strains brought about by TEC. It seeks to address how Anglicans from around the world, though no longer bound by ties to England and North America, can honor and share the gifts they have received and maintain their unity in the face, not only of often conflicting national interests but also of diverging forms of belief and practice.
read more...
February 10 2009 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner
Monday, February 2nd, 2009
When Laurent Nkunda was captured leaving the eastern Congo on January 22, 2009, a tentative sense of relief was felt by many in and around the area. Nkunda has been the leader of a “rebel” army that has, since 2004 at least, roamed the north-eastern areas of Congo, killing, raping, and pillaging the populace in the name of defending Tutsi Congolese from the attacks of Hutu extremists who had infiltrated the area after their expulsion from Rwanda in the mid-1990′s. Most recently, his army staged an offensive that seemed bent on overcoming areas protected by the UN following an agreement in 2003. Hundreds of thousands of people fled, as Congolese and UN forces retreated, and Nkunda’s soldiers, raping and looting as they went, moved in. For the first time, a man who had been ravaging a depleted and war-weary populace for 5 years, made it onto the front pages of a few American newspapers. With news of his capture, and transport to Rwanda, the publicity chapter appears closed.
Closed once again. For the sense of relief is at best tentative, given that Nkunda’s perpetrated horrors are but one set among a string of ongoing violent assaults upon the well-being of the people of eastern Congo. It is a long episode of victimization and degradation that goes back to the mid 1990′s and before, and that has seen the deaths of upwards of 5 million Congolese – some put the figure higher. This includes large numbers of women and children, many from the disease and starvation that has followed war and displacement. Political and internationally-brokered resolutions to this tragedy have come and gone, and the closure of Nkunda’s role on this list may well mark but another temporary lull. Occasionally, the newspapers and television stations around the world have noted the passing aspects of this long suffering, but only briefly, only in passing. Meanwhile, groups like Human Rights Watch, the International Rescue Committee, and subcommittees of the UN, along with brave individuals – local leaders, exiled Congolese, reporters at a distance – have been compiling dossier after dossier of documentation on the atrocities that have left millions dead, even more displaced, and rendered the area a shifting ground of survival amid famine, disease, and violence. And what this documentation points to is the explicit involvement, collusion, and willful ignorance of governments, businesses, and yes, even of churches.
Even churches. It is a matter worth studying more carefully as to why some disasters garner public interest more than others. Darfur, for instance, has now for a long time been at the center of international and Christian concern. Zimbabwe also, although with much less Christian interest. But the eastern Congo? Only in the Fall of 2008 did an All-Africa Council of Churches decide to put together a team of representatives, led by the Anglican Archbishop of Burundi Bernard Ntahoturi, to act as church delegates to surrounding governments of the area seeking their help in bringing peace. In itself the visit was significant, and marked a major shift in Christian witness. For one thing that has been all-too evident in the travails of the eastern Congo is the way that church leaders themselves have been so entwined with the politics of the major players and supporters of the wars in Eastern Congo – Rwanda, Uganda, Congo itself, and various internal interests – that the notion of looking for a Christian witness for peace in the land has been all but pointless. Abp. Ntahoturi this past Fall listed some of the realities that have been the daily faire of the Congolese, not just this past year, but for almost 15 years: “The suffering of children fleeing into the bush with or without their parents, women atrociously raped, abused and sometimes buried alive, old people and innocent civilians cowardly killed, and the malicious destruction of property and community life.” He concluded with the obvious, if repeatedly ignored, observation that silence from churches during “such a serious humanitarian disaster” makes it impossible for clergy to preach the love of God. But fifteen years of silence will not be easily overcome, let alone explained to God.
read more...
February 02 2009 | Articles